A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Single-brand dual-chamber discriminators to prevent inappropriate shocks in patients implanted with prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a propensity-weighted comparison of single- and dual-chamber devices. | LitMetric

Purpose: Comparisons of the efficacy of dual- vs. single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing inappropriate shocks have had contradictory results. We investigated whether dual-chamber devices have a lower risk of inappropriate shocks and the specific role of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators.

Methods: All heart failure (HF) patients without an indication for pacing and implanted with a prophylactic ICD were recruited from the nationwide multicenter UMBRELLA registry. Arrhythmic events were collected by remote monitoring and reviewed by a committee of experts.

Results: Among 782 patients, single-chamber ICDs were implanted in 537 (68.7%) and dual-chamber devices in 245 (31.3%). During a mean follow-up of 52.2 ± 24.5 months, 109 inappropriate shocks were delivered in 49 patients (6.2%). In the propensity-score-matched analysis, dual-chamber ICDs were related to lower rates of inappropriate shocks as compared to single-chamber devices (0.9% vs. 11.8%, p = < 0.001, log-rank test). In multivariable Cox proportional analysis, independent predictors of inappropriate shock were history of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78, CI 1.37-5.64, p = 0.004), chronic kidney disease (HR = 6.15, CI 2.82-13.53, p < 0.001), and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 2.84, CI 1.54-5.23, p = 0.001). Among ICD settings, PR logic was the only discriminator independently related to a reduced risk of inappropriate shocks (HR = 0.18, CI 0.06-0.48, p = 0.001), along with an SVT limit enabled over 200 bpm (HR = 0.24, CI 0.11-0.51, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this nationwide cohort of primary prevention ICD-only patients, dual-chamber devices were related to lower risk of inappropriate shocks compared to single-chamber ICDs. Besides, PR logic and SVT limit > 200 bpm emerged as protective factors.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-018-0494-0DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

inappropriate shocks
20
dual-chamber devices
12
implanted prophylactic
8
implantable cardioverter
8
cardioverter defibrillators
8
inappropriate
5
shocks
5
single-brand dual-chamber
4
dual-chamber discriminators
4
discriminators prevent
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!